who would you choose as the best general of the American revolution? my choice is between these four, but my favorite is william howe.

Benedict Arnold

served in the French and indian war at age 16 but did not see any action. was a merchant and smuggler. He first led a failed invasion of Canada and then made an important stand at Valcour Island where he built a fleet of gun boats with names like the 'royal savage', lol. He is responsible for the most important American victory of war at Saratoga. He was a brave, head strong and agressive commander, but ultimately was corrupted by his own ego and ambition.

William Howe

Howe was a natural soldier. He served throughout the seven years war, particapated in the capture of belle isle, Havana and Louisburg, but his greatest moment came at Quebec. where he heroically led a forlorn hope to capture the cliffs at Anse-au-Foulon. This bravery allowed Wolfe land his forces and engage the French at the Plains of Abraham. When it came to the American revolution he did not support the position of Parliament and was vocal against the 'intolerable acts'. As a Whig, he told his constituents that he would turn down any offer to serve in America, but despite this he changed his mind, thinking it was his duty and accepted a command. He never lost a battle, but his heart wasn't in it and his strange episodes of caution cost him ultimate victory

Charles Cornwallis

He studied as an officer at the turin military academy and like Howe, he served in the Seven Years War in many battles. did not support Parliament with regards to America, but he was deterimined to defeat the rebellion. On the battlefield he proved to be a sound tactician, leader and he did not lose a single battle apart from Yorktown, but his downfall was his impatience for victory, which meant his overall campaign was flawed.

George Washington

as a young man aspired to become an officer of the British army. He served in the French and Indian war, first as an aide to general braddock in the disasterous Monongahela expedition, rallying the remaining British forces to retreat. he was inspired by the bravery of general Braddock, who rode up and down rallying his troops in the heat of battle. He then served as the commander of the Virginia regiment, taking part in the capture of Fort Duquesne, but frustrated at his failure to advance any further in the british army, he resigned his commision. During the american revolution, he proved to be an extremly brave soldier, who could rally his troops at the point of defeat. But he was a poor tactician, which contributed to some servere defeats. His greatest achievment was his ability to keep the continental army from falling apart, which guarenteed britain's eventual defeat .

I like Howe's Curriculum vitae.
As for Benedict Arnold I believe he acted as a gentleman should have acted

How so? I fail to see "gentleman" in his actions. He didn't switch sides from some latent fealty to the king, he switched sides because his ego wasn't stroked enough. If that's the actions of a gentleman, then the appellation is an insult.

How so? I fail to see "gentleman" in his actions. He didn't switch sides from some latent fealty to the king, he switched sides because his ego wasn't stroked enough. If that's the actions of a gentleman, then the appellation is an insult.

Gentleman=mercenary, I guess.

and you think you as an an American raised have a objective point of view to this? In my country Balthasar Gerard is considered to be the greatest traitor while in Spain they considered him to be a hero

and you think you as an an American raised have a objective point of view to this? In my country Balthasar Gerard is considered to be the greatest traitor while in Spain they considered him to be a hero

The American rebels were regarded as sneaky and cowardly by the British (rather in the same way the Iraqi insurgents are described as "sneaky" by American soldiers now). They didn't fight as gentlemen should, according to the strict etiquette of warfare. And when the rebel forces suffered their serious reverses in the early phase of the Revolutionary war, the British expected them to do what any rational gentleman would do, and surrender. Washington did no such thing; he persisted with this apparent folly, which is why Benedict Arnold switched sides. Arnold, by his own lights, was merely being a rational 18th century gentleman and facing facts: the British had won, therefore it was time to hand over your sword like an honourable gentleman.

Arnold is my choice.
If he'd have just taken Washington's request ( after Philadelphia ) ... and not West Point... (took WP because he'd already decided)
We'd have statues of him nation wide as one of our greatest heros.

Just imagine his legacy if he'd have been standing next to Washington at Yorktown.

this is a great book that takes a small situation (historically) and shows what kinda leader he could be / and how important he was...

The American rebels were regarded as sneaky and cowardly by the British (rather in the same way the Iraqi insurgents are described as "sneaky" by American soldiers now). They didn't fight as gentlemen should, according to the strict etiquette of warfare. And when the rebel forces suffered their serious reverses in the early phase of the Revolutionary war, the British expected them to do what any rational gentleman would do, and surrender. Washington did no such thing; he persisted with this apparent folly, which is why Benedict Arnold switched sides. Arnold, by his own lights, was merely being a rational 18th century gentleman and facing facts: the British had won, therefore it was time to hand over your sword like an honourable gentleman.

Ha ha. Nice spin.
A man should surrender when his opponent thinks him beaten? Sure would make things easy if this were so. Good thing for the US that Washington was rational enough to know he wasn't beaten.

Americans take pride in the myth that they didn't fight according to "etiquette".